Chicago Cop Who Allegedly Struck Cyclist and Fled Is Acquitted of Felonies

Source: chi.streetsblog

Read more: http://chi.streetsblog.org/2014/02/10/cop-who-allegedly-struck-cycl...

An off-duty Chicago cop who apparently struck a female cyclist with his truck while drunk, fled the scene, and then lied about the incident on a police report, was acquitted of both felony charges he faced: leaving the scene of an accident and filing a false police report. However, last Thursday Cook County Judge James Linn did find Officer Michael Bergeson, 34, guilty of misdemeanor failing to provide aid and information at an accident involving injury.

On August 3, 2012, around 3:25 a.m., Nina Pilacoutas, 27, was cycling west home from her bartending job with boyfriend Clayton Meyer when they came to California and Wabansia, a skewed intersection with four-way stop signs. Bergeson was allegedly driving his Ford F150 pickup northbound on California when he blew a stop sign. Pilacoutas went over the hood of the truck and landed face-first on the pavement, suffering a concussion, facial injuries, broken bones in her feet, and bruises on her body.

link to news: http://www.suntimes.com/news/25446691-418/cop-convicted-of-misdemea...

How does anyone get out of that!

Are the police REALLY above the law?

Views: 1119

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The Grizz on February 12, 2014 at 1:31am
??? That's just dumb. What does lack of helmet have to do with anything? Some sort of bumbling effort to incriminate the cyclist? Of course you already said this with two words - pretzel logic, but there's my rant anyway.

Jeff Schneider said:

"Defense attorneys pointed that Pilacoutas ... was riding her bike without a helmet..."  Pretzel logic.

Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on February 12, 2014 at 2:30am
This is horrible. If I read it right both off duty police officer and cyclists allegedly were both drinking. Police officer leaves as soon as he knows ambulance is going to arrive so he isn't given a breathalizer. And doesn't say he's a cop. Wow. I can't believe he didn't get dui. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised. That cop is lucky. And apparently knows the system :((
Permalink Reply by Tricolor on February 12, 2014 at 2:35am

Drunk officers hitting people?  They seem to have a thing for DePaul students:

2013

2009

Permalink Reply by Andy J on February 12, 2014 at 3:36am

I have a dear friend that's on the job with the CPD for a long time. I have enormous respect for her and 99% of her colleagues, but it's incidents like this that breed the distrust of the police in Chicago. This guy didn't work alone; he had co-workers "taking care of their own".

The next time some kid gets shot by a gang-banger in the city (probably by the time I'm done writing this) and Garry McCarthy holds a press conference pleading for witnesses to come forward, think about how the CPD react if the perpetrator was one of theirs. Communities can "close ranks" too, and they learned how to do it from those that are supposed to serve and protect them.

Permalink Reply by Rich S on February 12, 2014 at 3:57am

It's absolute BS and it's taking a page out of the insurance companies' books. I believe they'll argue that they shouldn't be fully liable even if their client is 100% at fault if the victim was not wearing a seat belt. The "logic" being the medical expenses wouldn't have been so high if you had been wearing the belt. Completely ignores that there would be no medical expenses had the person not caused the collision in the first place!  

This whole thing stinks. The cop filed a report 2 days after the incident. I have no doubt his fellow officers let him know that they found his license plate. And the judge saying there was no evidence that the officer was behind the wheel??? Am I reading this wrong or did the cop stop, get out of the vehicle, call the ambulance, and then get back in his car and take off? So did the judge not take the word of the witness? 

Sad that stuff like this doesn't surprise me. Still makes me mad though. 


The Grizz said:

??? That's just dumb. What does lack of helmet have to do with anything? Some sort of bumbling effort to incriminate the cyclist? Of course you already said this with two words - pretzel logic, but there's my rant anyway.

Jeff Schneider said:

"Defense attorneys pointed that Pilacoutas ... was riding her bike without a helmet..."  Pretzel logic.

Permalink Reply by Robert Underwood on February 12, 2014 at 5:35am

Wow.  I guess his license plate came off in the collision?  He sure got less punishment than he seems to deserve. 

Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on March 13, 2014 at 3:42am
Permalink Reply by Davo on March 13, 2014 at 3:56am

Hopefully he will get more than a slap on the wrist in civil court.

Permalink Reply by Jim Freeman on March 13, 2014 at 6:10am

This is actually common in hit-and-runs.  I am handling a hit-and-run right now where the driver tried to claim he wasn't involved and there was no damage to his car.  After I informed the insurance adjuster that we had not only inventoried his front plate as evidence, but that we had also secured records from the secretary of state showing that the driver picked up a replacement plate just a couple days after the collision, they decided that their insured was probably not being entirely honest with them.

I've probably seen almost half a dozen instances where the plate comes off in a hit-and-run.

That's a good thing too.  It's almost like plates are made to pop off when there is a frontal impact.

We had one case where the hit and run driver waited for police and witnesses to leave before returning to the scene to look for his lost license plate.  Someone saw him come back, and we were able to ID the actual driver.  

 

Robert Underwood said:

Wow.  I guess his license plate came off in the collision? 

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on March 13, 2014 at 8:25am

When my car was rear-ended a few years ago I noticed the red paint on the other car's front plate letters leaves a very clear print on your bumper.

Permalink Reply by PFEggs on March 13, 2014 at 9:11am

Would be nice to see 'allegedly' taken off the headline of the post -- the scumbag did hit the cyclist and was found guilty for leaving the scene.  And it would be great to see a civil trial; not sure justice was done in the criminal one.

Permalink Reply by Drewbacca on March 13, 2014 at 3:09pm

I don't feel like reading through articles, was there evidence that he was drunk and the judge ignored it? Or did the hit-and-run aspect save the cop's ass until he had time to sober up?

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service